arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2601.23021

Comparing Bayesian Dynamic Borrowing and Synthetic Control Methods: Apples to Oranges?

Nicole Cizauskas·Foteini Strimenopoulou·Svetlana S. Cherlin·James M. S. Wason
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Bayesian dynamic borrowing (BDB) and synthetic control methods (SCM) are strategies to incorporate historical data in clinical trial design when control recruitment is a challenge. While both methods aim to improve efficiency, they differ in conceptual approach: BDB adjusts borrowing based on prior-data conflict, whereas SCM synthesizes individual-level control outcomes. This study aims to conduct a comparison BDB (using meta-analytic predictive prior (MAP)) and SCM using a case study of Pediatric Atopic Dermatitis. Six historical randomised control trials were selected for use in both the creation of the MAP prior and synthetic control arm. BDB MAP prior produced a mean response rate (historical control response probability) of 0.22 (posterior 95% credible interval: 0.11-0.36) (0.22 and 0.11-0.37 robustified), a power of 0.58, a type 1 error rate of 0.03, bias of 0.0007 (0.0008 robustified), a coverage of 0.96 (0.94 robustified) and prior ESS of 8.9 (3.32 robustified). SCM produced a mean response rate of 0.26 (95% confidence interval: 0.17-0.36), a power of 0.75, type 1 error rate of 0.013, bias of -0.0002, and coverage of 0.97; when adjusted to match the BDB ESS, SCM reported a similar mean response rate (0.27 and 0.13-0.46). a lower power (0.54), type 1 error rate (0.002) and bias(-0.0006), and the same coverage rate (0.97) to the initial SCM results. For this case study, the sample size adjusted SCM model produced a relatively similar power and type 1 error rate to the BDB MAP prior method. However, direct comparisons between these two methods fail to capture the true relationship due to how the data is handled differently and the purpose of each method. Method selection should consider trial-specific constraints, prior-data heterogeneity, and the desired balance between efficiency and robustness.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Nicole Cizauskas, Foteini Strimenopoulou, Svetlana S. Cherlin, James M. S. Wason. 2026-09-10. Comparing Bayesian Dynamic Borrowing and Synthetic Control Methods: Apples to Oranges?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.23021

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Bias-Correction for Privacy-Protected Spatial Autoregressive Models with Application to Restaurant Network Analysis

Spatial autoregressive (SAR) models and their extensions are important tools for studying network effects. However, with an increasing emphasis on data privacy, data providers often implement protection measures that render standard SAR models inapplicable. In this study, we introduce a privacy-protected SAR model that incorporates noise into both the response and covariates to meet privacy requirements. With noise present in both components, the traditional quasi-maximum likelihood estimator becomes difficult to compute because the likelihood function cannot be directly formulated. To bypass this hurdle, we begin with a pseudo-likelihood approach, initially omitting the noise in the covariates. A Newton-Raphson algorithm is then applied to compute the estimator; however, the estimator is biased. To address this, we propose a bias-corrected Newton-Raphson-type algorithm that simultaneously accounts for noise in both the response and covariates. We further show, under appropriate regularity conditions, that the resulting estimator is consistent and asymptotically normal. To further enhance computational efficiency, we also develop a bias-corrected least squares estimator. Several extensions are discussed, and the finite-sample performance of the proposed methods is evaluated through extensive simulations. We apply the proposed methodology to restaurant transaction data from a third-party payment platform. Our method identifies a statistically significant competitive network effect among restaurants and further reveals meaningful restaurant-customer interaction patterns.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

A variational framework for modal estimation

Multivariate mode estimation arises in many statistical problems such as inverse problems, multimodal sampling, and density-based clustering, but becomes challenging in moderate to high dimensions, especially when the underlying density is not directly evaluable. We introduce GERVE (Gibbs-measure Entropy-Regularized Variational Estimation), a sample-based method for estimating multivariate modes by approximating Gibbs distributions directly from samples, without estimating or evaluating the density. GERVE uses Gaussian-mixture variational annealing and natural-gradient optimization, producing a mixture concentrated in high-density regions whose component responsibilities also provide a clustering of the observations. We prove theoretical guarantees in two regimes: as the Gibbs temperature goes to zero, the optimal variational mixture concentrates around the global modes of the population density; at fixed positive temperature, we prove existence, consistency, and asymptotic normality of empirical maximizers and propose a bootstrap procedure for uncertainty quantification. Simulations and a real-data experiment show that GERVE accurately recovers modes and produces meaningful clusters.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Objective Model Prior Probabilities in Variable Selection

For many years it was routine to use equal model prior probabilities in Bayesian model uncertainty analysis. At least twenty years ago it became clear that this was problematic, leading to support of much too large models in the increasingly huge model spaces being considered in genomics and other fields. A popular replacement was to adopt a suggestion of Harold Jeffreys for the variable selection problem in which a total of $k$ possible variables are being considered for inclusion in the model: give the collection of all models containing $d$ variables ($d = 0, . . . , k$) prior probability $1/(k + 1)$ and then divide this prior probability equally among the models in the collection. Many other choices of model prior probabilities that impose severe parsimony have also been introduced. We begin by reviewing the problems with using equal model prior probabilities and then discuss some serious problems with the Jeffreys choice. Finally, we introduce and study a number of objective alternative choices of model prior probabilities, from both numerical and theoretical perspectives.

stat.ME↗